Ghee, Patrick, let’s see? You have a well known penchant for deleting any comments that don’t perfectly jive with the narrow spectral views you offer on your blogsite… I would think calling any other blog’s editorial standards into question would be… well, sort of having the pot call the kettle black.

Come on pot, fess-up and be truthful at least once this day.

I think you would find only one instance of were I ever deleted someones comment on my blog. Frankly I don’t get enough of them to delete. And I have never banned anyone from commenting.

Caralato says:

Matt my jaw is getting a little slack here.

Gryph has your e-mail and hits your inbox privately? I mean, in addition to his stuff here?

And Gryph routinely deletes commentors on his blog? (while playing HTT above?)

Caralato, if you ever actually figure out what the fuck MM is talking about, let me know. I gave up a long time ago.

>>>>Those psychiatrists and psychologists were lobbied by gay and lesbian activists to at least reconsider their views on the issue. In fact they ambushed their main convention.

Lovely.

I’m always amused at right-wing nutters–gay or otherwise–who bloviate about topics about which they know nothing, while apparently asserting some expertise in the matter.

Aside from the often overlooked fact that the psychiatrists had no basis in science for their original 1950s determination that homosexuality was a mental disorder, the fact is that they had rather substantial scientific evidence that it was not a mental disorder by 1973 when they made the decision to delete the “81 words” regarding homosexuality from their DSM bible.

Do a little rooting around in the IndeGayForum archives–if they have a search function there, do a search on “Thomas Szasz.” And look for the “81 Words” audio program on Ira Glass’s This American Life series. And, by the way, take a look at http://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm the first half of which gives a fairly concise synopsis of what actually happened. I doubt if you will do any of these, since you apparently only want to bloviate.

Gryph has your e-mail and hits your inbox privately? I mean, in addition to his stuff here?

And Gryph routinely deletes commentors on his blog? (while playing HTT above?)

Come on pot, fess-up and be truthful at least once this day.

Patrick/Hank (#30, 31)-

I’m as mystified as to why all you trolls continue to hang out here and get yourselves all worked up and enabling your laden anger.

Hey, at least here you are allowed to vent. Conservatives aren’t given that same courtesy at all of the Leftist Blogs.

You guys must like S&M?

How can GP comment in post #28 and referr to posts 30/31?

However, if you had a blog that everyone always agreed with you on every issue it would be rather boring.

Gramps, no obsession here… I’ve long since quit reading your flurry of angered emails that follow my comments here and elsewhere. Obsession is a strange word for a self-professed guy who hangs out with the ancient, grey and leering old men over at OutSports. But hey, Gramps, if it keeps ya’ out of the bars and off the streets, I’m all for you indulging in this latest perversion/obsession.

BTW, I thought you didn’t read comments anymore? LOL, you slay me Gramps.

You and boy-John were wrong on the nature of it being a “grassroots” movement regarding gay marriage initiative in Hawaii and Vermont… and you were wrong when you tried to argue that Bruce got the issue wrong, too.

But, like usual, when called to task and held to account… good GayLeft liberals like you and boy-John and raj and Kevin and Erik and QueerPat all play the same game: don’t admit your error, try to divert the discussion and –when that fails– move the goalposts.

It’s an old debate trick for an old gheezer, Gramps. But it’s cool with me. I’m just calling the spade a spade.

I’m as mystified as to why all you trolls continue to hang out here and get yourselves all worked up and enabling your laden anger.

Hey, at least here you are allowed to vent. Conservatives aren’t given that same courtesy at all of the Leftist Blogs.

You guys must like S&M?

Gramps writes, speaking to another: “Just quit being an intellectually lazy toadstool and go look up the history yourself. Pfft.”

How fitting for someone still sitting on his own toadstool; lazy as ever. I think those words of advice you offered fit better on you, Gramps, than on anyone else commenting here today.

You never seem to comment at all anymore MM unless its something bad about me. Obsessed I see. And I don’t know why you keep calling me “Gramps”. You do realize don’t you that I am in fact a 12-year old girl from Encino, CA, right?

Gene’s comment (#23) and most of the other shrill comments prove yet again that our critics do not, or cannot, read and comprehend the postings they rail on about.

Please read!

I definitely haven’t read all comments… but in the ones I have, even the people who DON’T support gay marriage mostly seem to agree that the MPA is unnecessary, a bad decision, and will fail.

How fitting for someone still sitting on his own toadstool; lazy as ever. I think those words of advice you offered fit better on you, Gramps, than on anyone else commenting here today.

Normally, Gene, people who make an honest assessment of their priorities, are willing to point out their own mistakes, and suggest ways to improve them are called mature and well-adjusted.

In the gay community, they’re called “self-loathing” and it is claimed that they “bash themselves”.

Folks, they see you as a pawn to be moved and sacrificed. They’re not worth the mea culpas you continuously espouse.

Spoken like a true apologist Democrat.

Now get right out there and tell us how opposing gay marriage and supporting state constitutional amendments and laws to ban it is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

Or better yet, tell us how Howard Dean’s claim that Democrats share Pat Robertson’s values is advancing gay rights.

Since you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats use gays as a pawn to be moved and sacrificed, why should we think differently about Republicans? Or are you merely demonstrating that we could go from self-loathing to self-loving simply by switching party affiliations?

News Flash for Gene! Clinton has been out of office since 2000, guy. That was the last Administration that sold the Oval Office to the highest bidders… granting pardons to all of the wealthy felons… and pissed all over gays –while the GayLeft covered for the boys in the closet.

That Administration wasn’t the doing of any conservative gay American. We’d already experienced blow jobs and didn’t need a Commander in Chief to give us one to validate our self worth.

Honestly, what the GayLeft thinks passes for insight… circle your wagons boys, it’s going to be a long night for you.

Those psychiatrists and psychologists were lobbied by gay and lesbian activists to at least reconsider their views on the issue. In fact they ambushed their main convention.

Lovely.

errr…. No. Really NDT, you have a strong case of Snap Judgment Syndrome. Once again, its not quite that simple either. I’m not going to go farther off topic with this. Just quit being an intellectually lazy toadstool and go look up the history yourself. Pfft.

Folks, they see you as a pawn to be moved and sacrificed. They’re not worth the mea culpas you continuously espouse.

Alas.

Agape. Really.

Why didn’t you link back to that post, Erik, and show us the proof?

Those psychiatrists and psychologists were lobbied by gay and lesbian activists to at least reconsider their views on the issue. In fact they ambushed their main convention.

So the decision wasn’t based on science, but on ideology and lobbying dollars.

Lovely.

But court decisions are also not made by the public, and many judges are never elected, they are appointed. Yet many have railed against “unelected judges” who make decisions in favor of gay rights. So if we’re going to say it was OK for psychiatrits to do this because the public wasn’t involved, then wouldn’t the same go for judges?

Unfortunately, the US Constitution says that the public has a right to rule on and overturn judicial decisions, via the ballot box.

And, as Gryph let slip above, psychologists and psychiatrists allowed gay activists — part of the public — to lobby and sway their decisions. Following your own logic, wouldn’t that require judges to do the same?

He’s saying that she can’t support gays now because we pushed too far with marriage.

Actually, what he’s saying is that she is showing voters, a STRONG majority of which oppose gay marriage, that she agrees with them. I hardly call that a “defense”; I call it a statement of reality. The fact that you don’t LIKE the reality is what is leading you to attack him, rather than deal with it.

That is exemplified by this statement:

It’s a way to avoid looking at all of the huge problems we face which were there before marriage was ever a campaign issue. The article is very disappointing to me because he doesn’t seem to realize any of this.

LOL….Carl, you’re doing a wonderful job of proving his point.

You have just argued that spending tens of millions of dollars on local activity and HIV/AIDS, instead of campaigns on gay marriage, would do absolutely nothing.

You’ve demonstrated why you and your fellow leftists are utterly unfit to speak for gay rights.

Surprise! Imagine that?

In Hawaii, a gay advocacy group –founded in 1989– worked to develop a gay marriage project and identify potential lawsuit litigants who would be willing to assist in a challenge. The group? GLEA Foundation. Oh wait, that doesn’t count; the lawsuits were filed by individuals. Right. Brooklyn Bridge for Sale, step this way.

In Vermont, the two people (KP & Ciel) who were ultimately the 1st ones through the proverbial civil union door had long been involved in HRC and VtLand gay advocacy groups –in fact, they reaped benefits from extensive pre-legal research and PR efforts seeking to advance the cause. Who paid for the legal work, media consulting, image framing, etc? Ghee, it was the HRC in good ole’ DC… oh wait, they don’t count as a gay advocacy group –do they John or Gramps? Right. That Brooklyn Bridge you’re trying to sell guys is still unsold.

I love the GayLeft re-re-re-rewriting history to the point that it becomes impossible to know what’s true unless you were there in the crucible –as I was for VtLand and my partner was for Hawaii.

Nice try to spin it out into the “But it was a grassroots movement of individuals not gay organizations”… but you’re wrong again John and Gramps.

But Gramps… just like you taunted Bruce, YOU step up to the plate and admit your new profession –aside from trying to nab a conservative guy and get that picket fence thing going for you in your advancing years– to spin, distort and lie your way into or out of an discussion.

It just won’t work when you run into informed opinions. Sorry about that.

Good post Bruce.

Now, I know NDXXX is a big boy and quite capable of defending himself, but you are just weird, Erik. Plain, flat out weird.

I thought we were beyond using the “Are you really gay or just saying that to get dates” line of BS. To be blunt, Erik you really need to rethink your line of “reasoning” –or at least what passes for reasoning in your neck of the woods– when it requires you to defame someone’s intrinsic nature or gay self.

What’s next Erik? Are you and the other goomba of the GayLeft going to start revoking our Gay Cards like your victim-soulmate Jesse Jackson offered to do to blacks who supported Bush? Maybe round up the conservatives gays and put ‘em in the political re-education concentration camps?

Gosh Erik, I might get you confused for being intolerant given that you whine about the intolerance of others so often… or is that you standing over there next to the religion bigots, narrow minded twits and other intolerants of the GayLeft?

Thought so. Gheesh, what passes for tolerance these days.

Shame on you Erik… and I don’t mean that in a positve BDSM submissive taunt.